25 Things You May Not Know About 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' | Moviefone 25 Things You May Not Know About 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' by Gary Susman Everyone thinks they know 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' the classic, urbane romantic comedy released 50 years ago today, on October 5, 1961. The film that cemented Audrey Hepburn's reputation as an all-time fashion icon, set the bar for every New York fantasy/romantic comedy from 'Barefoot in the Park' to 'Sex and the City,' and gave birth to a thousand Manic Pixie Dream Girls (or at least 25 others). Yet there's a lot you may not know about the movie -- who the real-life Holly Golightly was, how radically different the film might have been if 'Breakfast' author Truman Capote had gotten his way, why the Oscar-winning song 'Moon River' almost got cut from the film, which classic outfits Hepburn herself came up with, how many cartons of cigarettes the tobacco-loving characters smoked on-screen, and what Mickey Rooney has to say about his still-controversial performance. 1. Who was the real-life Holly Golightly?

So many women have been named as possible inspirations to Truman Capote -- including Gloria Vanderbilt, Oona Chaplin, writer/actress Carol Grace (who became Walter Matthau's wife), writer Maeve Brennan and model Suzy Parker -- that Capote called the whole speculation "the Holly Golightly sweepstakes." He claimed there was a real Holly, a woman who lived downstairs from him when he was a writer who'd just moved to New York in the early 1940s (like the autobiographical narrator of Capote's tale), though he never identified her by name. A New Yorker named Bonnie Golightly filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against Capote claiming he'd based the character on her. 2. As George Costanza learned during a memorable 'Seinfeld' episode where he watched the film instead of reading the book for his book club, there are a lot of major differences between Capote's 1958 novella and George Axelrod's screenplay to the 1961 movie.

There's the setting (the 1940s, not the contemporary 1960s), the nameless narrator (called Paul in the film), Holly's age (she's still in her late teens in the story but played by 31-year-old Hepburn on-screen), Holly's fondness for marijuana (gone in the film). Holly's bisexuality (ditto), and the wistful, ambiguous ending (replaced in the film by a conventional romantic happy ending). Most of all, there's the sense many readers get that Holly is a professional escort, for taking money from wealthy men whom she sometimes sleeps with. In interviews , Capote described Holly not as a prostitute or golddigger but called her an American geisha girl. The film downplayed any suggestion of prostitution, with Paramount publicists issuing statements like , "The star is Audrey Hepburn, not Tawdry Hepburn." 3. Capote envisioned his friend Marilyn Monroe in the part, but her acting coach, Paula Strasberg, talked her out of it, saying the role's call-girl-like nature was bad for her image. Others supposedly in line for the role included Jane Fonda, Shirley MacLaine and Kim Novak.

Capote was a friend of Hepburn's but thought she was miscast. So did Hepburn herself, until director Blake Edwards persuaded her she could do it. 4. Blake Edwards pleaded on his knees with the producers not to hire George Peppard as the male lead. (Steve McQueen was considered but was unavailable.) Indeed, Peppard tried to play the role as a traditional matinee idol, not a vulnerable, flawed, naive young man. So said co-star Patricia Neal , who played Paul's sugar mama (known in the film as "2-E"). She and Peppard had been friends before the filming, but she wrote in her memoir that she was put off by his apparent desire "to be an old-time movie hunk." (Later, of course, Peppard would age into that more standard, macho kind of leading man, most memorably as the leader of TV's 'The A-Team.') 5. How did Edwards manage to shoot the memorable opening scene, in which a taxi rolls down an empty 5th Avenue at dawn, Holly gets out in front of Tiffany's and she nibbles on a Danish while gazing longingly through the jeweler's window? There are two conflicting accounts.

One said the scene was hampered by challenges -- a gaggle of gawkers longing for a glimpse of Hepburn, the star's dislike of Danishes, and an accident that nearly electrocuted a crew member. Yet Edwards said the shot was relatively easy, with the busy thoroughfare suddenly clearing up as if by divine intervention. "It was as if God said, ''I'm going to give you a break now, but for the rest of your career you're going to have to live off this one,'" he recalled. At a recent screening of the movie , Edwards' widow, Julie Andrews , said the director (whom she would marry nearly a decade after 'Breakfast') claimed he got the shot in one take. 6. For a movie so associated with Manhattan, very little of it was shot there. There were only about 8 days of location shooting, including inside Tiffany's, which opened on a Sunday for the first time in decades to allow filming, though 40 armed guards and several Tiffany's sales clerks were on hand to prevent pilferage. 7. The party at Holly's apartment, like much of the film, was shot on a Paramount soundstage.

A signature Edwards sequence -- he would go on to shoot memorable parties in the 'Pink Panther' movies, '10,' 'Victor/Victoria,' and of course, 'The Party' -- it took six days to film. The extras playing the guests were all friends and relations of the director, Andrews has said. According to studio notes, the revelers consumed plenty of real champagne, as well as 120 gallons of soft drinks, lots of party food (hot dogs, cold cuts, chips, dips, and sandwiches), and 60 cartons of cigarettes. Even that didn't generate enough smoke, so Edwards brought onto the set a smoker of the sort beekeepers use. 8. It's never explained why, at the party, Hepburn is wearing a gown made from a towel. A scene that was cut from the final release has her taking a bath when the party breaks out, and she's forced to improvise a gown. 9. What's the movie's connection to 'The Flintstones'? It's Alan Reed , who played gangster Sally Tomato. He was also the voice of Fred Flintstone. 10.

Buddy Ebsen had all but retired when he was persuaded to play Doc Golightly, Holly's estranged husband from down South. His brief performance is said to have landed him the role of Jed Clampett on 'The Beverly Hillbillies,' which made him more famous than ever and extended his career by decades. 11. Hepburn's husband, actor Mel Ferrer , seemed to exercise a near-Svengali-like control over his wife during the production. Neal recalled dining with the couple at their home, an evening that included a very light meal and ended practically before sunset; she remarked that now she knew how Hepburn stayed so thin. Ferrer also tried to influence his wife's performance, until Edwards took her aside and insisted that she treat him as the film's sole director. After that, Ferrer behaved like wet blanket; upon seeing the finished film, his only compliment to his wife was, "I liked your hat." 12.

Henry Mancini and Johnny Mercer composed 'Moon River' with Hepburn's limited vocal range in mind, having heard her sing in 'Funny Face.' There was talk of having Marni Nixon dub her vocals (as she would do a couple years later in 'My Fair Lady'), but Edwards decided that Hepburn's own plain, unvarnished rendition of the song fit the character better. 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' - 'Moon River' 13. "Over my dead body!" That was the response to a Paramount executive who wanted to cut the song from the film. It's not clear who said it, however. One account says it was Hepburn, another says it was the producers. 14. Hepburn worked with designer Hubert de Givenchy to craft her costumes for the film. One result: Holly's iconic little black dress, one of the most influential fashion choices in cinema history and a must for nearly every woman's wardrobe ever since.

(Yes, it was Coco Chanel, not Givenchy, who invented the little black dress, but it was the version Hepburn wore that made the garment a fashion staple.) Christie's auctioned the original dress in 2006 and sold it for $923,000 (one of the highest prices ever paid for a piece of movie memorabilia), with the money going to support the construction of a school for the poor in Calcutta. 15. Despite her reputation for elegance, Hepburn enjoyed relaxing in a turtleneck and jeans. Which is what Holly wears while lounging on the fire escape and singing 'Moon River.' 16. You'd never know from Holly's willowy figure that Hepburn had given birth to son Sean just three months before shooting. As a hobby, the new mom took up knitting. 17. Hepburn caught a cold after spending four days in studio-made rain shooting the final sequence. 18. The one part of the film that makes audiences cringe today is Mickey Rooney's performance as Holly's neighbor, Mr. Yunioshi.

Aside from the insult of having a non-Asian performer play a Japanese man by wearing yellowface makeup, Coke-bottle glasses, and buck teeth, there's also the performance's consistent sense of caricature and stereotype. In a 2008 interview , Rooney said Edwards hired him as a veteran comic actor and directed him to play the character broadly, and that if anyone had taken offense at his portrayal -- like the Asian-American activists who got a free public screening of 'Breakfast' in Sacramento yanked in favor of the more anodyne 'Ratatouille' -- it was news to him. "Never in all the more than 40 years after we made it -- not one complaint," Rooney said. "Every place I've gone in the world people say, 'God, you were so funny.' Asians and Chinese come up to me and say, 'Mickey you were out of this world.'" He added that if he'd known the performance would offend people, "I wouldn't have done it." 19. The film reportedly cost $2.5 million to make.

(Some $750,000 of that reportedly went to Hepburn, making her one of the highest-paid actresses of the era.) It earned $4 million in the U.S. upon its initial release and $14 million over its lifetime. 20. Consumers responded almost immediately to the film. Besides the black cocktail dress, Holly's coat and purse became widely copied. Animal shelters reported a rise in demand for ginger tomcats like Holly's cat (whose name, of course, was "Cat"). The soundtrack album went to No. 1 and stayed on the Billboard chart for two years. 21. 'Breakfast' earned Oscar nominations for Hepburn's performance, Axelrod's adapted screenplay, and for art direction. It won two prizes, for Mancini's original score and for Original Song ('Moon River'). They were the first two Oscars of Mancini's career; he'd ultimately win four times out of 18 nominations, and he would compose music for Edwards on many more movies, notably, the 'Pink Panther' films and 'Victor/Victoria.' 22. In 1966, there was a Broadway musical version, starring Mary Tyler Moore and Richard Chamberlain .

It closed after just four performances, becoming one of those legendary flops that -- if as many people who claimed to have seen it actually did -- wouldn't have been a flop at all. 23. In 1969, ABC commissioned a pilot for a TV series, a sitcom called 'Holly Golightly' that starred Stephanie Powers and Jack Kruschen (as Joe the bartender, a character from Capote's novella that didn't make it into the movie). The network ultimately declined to pick up the pilot and make it into a series. 24. The property made it to the stage once more as a straight play in 2009, on London's West End. Anna Friel (the cult TV series 'Pushing Daises') played Holly. 25. In 1995, the band Deep Blue Something had a hit with a Hepburn-inspired song called 'Breakfast at Tiffany's.' The lyrics actually had more references to 'Roman Holiday,' but songwriter Todd Pipes thought the reference to the more iconic tale of Holly Golightly would make a better song title.

[Photo: Everett Collection] Breakfast at Tiffany’s: fifty years of sunshine and heartbreak - Telegraph Classic Movies Breakfast at Tiffany’s: fifty years of sunshine and heartbreak Half a century after it was made, Breakfast at Tiffany’s is returning to cinemas. The charming film dispenses with the toughness of Truman Capote’s original novella – and turns Holly Golightly from a hard-nosed hooker to a 'lopsided romantic’ – but, for Andrew O’Hagan, its bittersweet mood is irresistible. American innocence: Holly Golightly - played by Audrey Hepburn Audrey Hepburn with George Peppard and Patricia Neal Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's Photo: Courtesy Paramount Audrey Hepburn is caught between takes while shooting the film's opening scene Photo: Courtesy Paramount The composer Henry Mancini teaches Audrey Hepburn how to play the guitar Photo: Courtesy Paramount Hepburn and the director Blake Edwards confer on a location shoot Photo: Courtesy Paramount Image 1 of 7 George Peppard and Audrey Hepburn are at the centre of the throng as filming brings traffic to a standstill outside Tiffany's on 5th Avenue, New York.

Photo: Courtesy Paramount 11:25AM GMT 19 Jan 2011 I sometimes wonder if sweetness has temporarily gone out of modern literature. You know: charm. It has never been very fashionable, and you have to look back to a novella like Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s to find the kind of sweetness that smacks of genius. The title has entered the language and the film is 50 years old this year. So how did it come about, this delightful little work, and how is it that this famous film, like few others, represents such a natural flow of American innocence? When we think of it, we smile, and smiling is everything in popular culture. The first thing to say is that the original book was much tougher than Blake Edwards’s film. The main character, this nervous, stylish, party girl, Holly Golightly, was effectively a prostitute, a Manhattan version of Sally Bowles, the girl at the centre of Christopher Isherwood’s Berlin stories, which later formed the basis of the musical, Cabaret.

Holly is not so much a character as a force of nature, a person who seems, in herself, to summon the spirit of an age and who flutters into our lives trailing nostalgia, the affectionate aroma of a common memory. Since writing that last sentence, I just took the book down from a shelf in my study. It is an English first edition, published by Hamish Hamilton in 1958, and its first few sentences come off the page as fresh as this morning. ''I am always drawn back to places where I have lived, the houses and their neighbourhoods,” the narrator says. “For instance, there is a brownstone in the East Seventies, where, during the early years of the war, I had my first New York apartment.’’ Holly, the captivating 19-year-old girl who also lived in that brownstone, represented a tangle of people for her author, Capote. She was, as the agent O J Berman says in the book, ''a phoney – but a real phoney’’. The vibrant wonder-seeker who comes from the South to shine in New York: that was a number of people Capote had known, including his own mother, Nina.

It was the story of a million hoofers, a million actresses and social butterflies, wannabes, and writers just like Truman Capote. He grew up in rural Alabama and was brought up to New York, those early New York summers later becoming the stuff of legend for him. They represented a time when the future was golden and anything seemed possible. Related Articles Breakfast at Tiffany's 50 years on 30 Sep 2010 Holly is also a number of free-wheeling girls Capote got to know. ''Silly-young and self-amused’’, with ''an almost breakfast-cereal air of health, a soap and lemon cleanness,’’ Holly Golightly was, for her author, the acme of post-war American freedom, a girl who knew how to invent herself. Capote’s mother married a man who spent 14 months in Sing Sing, just like Sally Tomato, the gangster Holly goes to visit every Thursday in the book. The scandal may have led directly to Nina’s suicide. Capote bottled up what had happened, but Nina is there in Holly Golightly, ''strictly a girl you’ll read where she ends up at the bottom of a bottle of Seconals’’.

His friends Phoebe Pierce and Carol Marcus, with whom he danced at El Morocco, are all over the character, too. Some of the lines in Breakfast at Tiffany’s seem to have come straight out of Carol Marcus’s mouth. ''I thought writers were quite old. Of course, Saroyan isn’t old… I can’t get excited by a man until he’s 42.’’ Marcus later married William Saroyan, the writer, and later still married the actor Walter Matthau. She’s the über-Holly and full of a kind of wild wisdom and camp elegance. (I would say wisdom: I’m 42.) Another influence on Capote’s sense of this bright new character in American fiction was Marilyn Monroe. He loved the wit and the strange sadness Marilyn expressed in her friendship with him; the sense of aloneness and of running away from the past, which turns out to be the exact feeling behind the ''mean reds’’, the depressions that lead Holly Golightly to take a cab to 5th Avenue and eat breakfast in front of Tiffany’s window.

Holly, in her little black dress, was a gold-digger, but she was more than a gold-digger: she wanted a life of the imagination, and the movie of Breakfast at Tiffany’s was to surrender much of this in an effort to turn the story into a romance. In the book, Holly becomes a vivid ghost of former fresh summers, a girl who burned with self-inventing glory for a short time before disappearing into the dark of South America. In the film she doesn’t go to South America; she kisses George Peppard and cuts her losses. Capote wanted Marilyn for the film and he was never happy with the casting of Audrey Hepburn. The author had wanted a kind of literary magic to light up the screen, the book’s black lining to show through the tinsel and peroxide, but the film starring Hepburn would prove to be as light as soufflé and Givenchy-cool. Capote’s girl had smoked esoteric cigarettes called Picayunes and lived off cottage cheese on Melba toast; and his narrator, his story’s would-be writer, was much of a muchness with Capote himself, a small, gay man as far from George Peppard’s perfectly handsome gigolo as it’s possible to get.

(Martin Jurow, the film’s co-producer, recalls a meeting at which Capote insisted he himself play the male lead. ''Truman, this role just isn’t good enough for you,’’ said Jurow, thus saving the author’s face and probably saving the film, too.) But Capote was always more bitter about the casting of Holly. ''Paramount double-crossed me in every conceivable way,’’ he said. ''Holly had to have something touching about her – unfinished. Marilyn had that. Audrey is an old friend and one of my favourite people but she was just wrong for that part.’’ Sadly for Marilyn, the people around her (including herself: by this point she was failing, and more around herself than in her own skin) thought it too obvious that she play a hooker. When they first offered the part to Hepburn, she didn’t want to be a hooker either. The producer insisted Holly wasn’t a hooker, but ''a dreamer of dreams, a lopsided romantic’’.

The character was to become a midcentury classic: on screen, she was less vulnerable, less dark and less raw, but Hepburn gave her a classy easefulness that was more in touch with the Sixties. According to a new book, Breakfast at Tiffany’s: The Official 50th Anniversary Companion, by Sarah Gristwood, Edwards flew to Hepburn’s home in Switzerland. ''Edwards joined Hepburn’s husband, her agent, and even her mother in convincing her that the style he used to shoot the picture would effectively purify the part.’’ Holly wasn’t vicious; she was ''kooky’’. Yet the film of Breakfast at Tiffany’s balances Capote’s beautiful story in a new way for the screen. Suddenly, we have Paul Varjak (Peppard), the struggling writer whose experiences (and dreams) are seen to parallel those of Holly Golightly. Holly might take $50 off men when she visits the powder room, but Paul is a ''kept man’’, allowing his bills to be paid by an older lady whom he sleeps with. In a sense, they are both ''lost’’, and the film tells the story of how they fell in love.

It’s a different kind of sweetness, a Hollywood kind, but at the time it challenged some of the stereotypes about women and men and the business of sex. Edwards was never sure he got it right with casting Peppard. He had wanted Steve McQueen. All of these issues – Capote’s unhappiness, Edwards’s relative inexperience, and casting uncertainties about Hepburn and Peppard – must have contributed to a siege mentality on the set. Peppard felt undervalued and expressed it as arrogance. He saw himself as a Method-actor, a serious student of the principles underlying screen acting, and he had a big theory about what the movie was about. There was no warmth between him and Hepburn and it shows. He thinks the movie is about him, when it’s about the girl and the girl’s journey. He’s just a pretty face and never was a pretty face more disfigured with self-importance. In more politically correct times, the part of the Japanese neighbour Mr Yunioshi, played by Mickey Rooney, has drawn much criticism.

Rooney does play him as a vamping, slant-eyed cliché and you find yourself wondering while you watch him how a movie in which so many things are wrong could turn out seeming so right. And the answer is – panache. In our hearts we don’t want movies simply to reproduce life. We love them most when they appear to improve on life. When a film has that certain magic, the magic of wishful thinking keenly deployed, we suspend disbelief and political concerns in order to fall under its spell. The film made money and the critics were divided, while year by year it has grown in the public consciousness. It sits there, a late-night favourite and a weekend hangover cure, reminding viewers that there are worlds in which all ugliness seems to disappear in a welter of charm. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is not a great film. Its compromises are too loud and its emotions too garish. But it had a sense of style that will always linger. It is also beloved because it is buoyed by a certain wistfulness that is unforgettable. It makes the audience think of its own golden periods of freedom and think about the passing of time that threatens to molest every ripe scene in life, even as it is happening.

The film is still remembered because it captures something basic and crucial about how people experience their lives. You can’t go home again: the story of the past will always haunt you, remaining forever, like a favourite actress’s face, trapped in a bright moment that was unaware of its brightness at the time. Many movies survive because of their mood. Gone With the Wind is not a great movie, but it has a beautiful mood. The film of To Kill a Mockingbird, 50 next year (from the novel written by Capote’s friend Harper Lee) is not a classic, either – too sentimental, too relentless in its plotting. Yet it, too, has a beautiful mood, and it is the same mood of nostalgic perfection, of the untouchable past, which makes Breakfast at Tiffany’s a film that will last forever. The film has a tone, and the tone is of sunshine and heartbreak. Nothing about its stars or production difficulties or even its wonderful source material can carry that tone, but in Breakfast at Tiffany’s you find it is the theme song, Moon River, that does so. All the strain of the film and its ambitions are swept away in those quiet waters, a song that seems like liquid regret.

''A movie without music is like an aeroplane without fuel,’’ wrote Audrey Hepburn to the composer Henry Mancini. ''Your music has lifted us up and sent us soaring. Everything we cannot say with words or show with action you have expressed for us.’’ Breakfast at Tiffany’s returns to selected cinemas on Friday Andrew O’Hagan’s novel The Life and Opinions of Maf the Dog and of His Friend Marilyn Monroe is published by Faber & Faber Start your free 30 day Amazon Prime trial» Book vs. Movie: Kelly from Stacked on Breakfast at Tiffany's - The Readventurer The Readventurer Written by Truman Capote and published in 1956. Directed by Blake Edwards, screenplay by George Axelrod. Released in 1961. Today, we're happy to welcome brilliant librarian/blogger Kelly Jensen from Stacked for a Book vs. Movie comparison of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Take it away, Kelly... Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, I can properly talk about how great it was to read Breakfast at Tiffany’s by Truman Capote then follow it up with a screening of the film. The premise of Capote’s 1958 novella is exceedingly simple.

The nameless narrator, a young male writer, receives a phone call from a former friend, and it’s through reconnecting with the former friend wherein the narrator realizes what a great story he has to tell about Holly Golightly, the girl who had been his neighbor just a few years prior. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a roughly 100-page character sketch about a girl who talks a big game but who is at her core exceptionally sad, lonely, and empty. Golightly likes to spend her time around socialites, around money, and she throws parties with the best of them. Her apartment lacks furnishing, and the only thing she keeps close to her is her cat. Each time the narrator attempts to forge communication with her and tries to get to her to open up, he is thwarted. Which is not to say he’s a hero in the story - he’s not. He pushes her too hard and he cares far too much about a girl who does not wish for that sort of relationship. Nineteen-year-old Golightly is a complex character. She presents herself as anything by throwing these parties, by associating herself with wealth and luxury and fascination with little things.

She does it even further through her job, which can best be described as a liaison among a bunch of men who are into drugs. Yes, there’s an air of intrigue about her, but she presents herself as simplistic because it is easiest. It’s the narrator who chips away at this facade though, as he continually pushes her to talk with him. To let him inside the cage she’s built for herself. See, Golightly has built this world around her so she can distance herself not just from other people but so that she can distance herself from her worst enemy - herself. Her life. Where it looked like she was treating everyone around her as worthless, as artifice and throwaway, what the narrator learns about Golightly was that she was really treating herself as such. It was just easier to project upon those around her. This comes full circle with the story of the cat, Golightly’s one true possession. When she’s preparing to leave New York City, to leave the past she’s already ditched elsewhere, to leave the former marriage and children and responsibilities that show up to remind her that she is worth something to other people and to herself, Golightly dumps the cat in Spanish Harlem.

Tells the cat it was a great run but no one belongs to anyone else and so now he has the chance to start fresh. Just like her. Capote’s novella is a character sketch, but it’s not just a character sketch of Golightly, but of the writer. The narrator is a writer, yet somehow Capote is able to take the narrator and make him a commentary on writing and on narration as craft, too. Here’s a character writing about a pained, removed, relationship-avoiding girl and as much as he tries to crack her open, she is beyond his control. As much as he wants to have a relationship with her and allow her to see her value and worth and her autonomy and her ability to be cared for and treated with respect, he is only the writer. He can only do so much for her. He can sprinkle his depiction of her with pretty words and descriptions - and this is a huge strength of the novella - but ultimately, Golightly is a character who has to play out her story the way her story is meant to be played out. He can only direct her so far. The rest is up to her... and to the reader.

In other words, Capote’s given us the writer’s experience with writing. With creating a character and a back story and a world. Then he lets it go. What’s masterful about how he does this is that he himself is never the actual narrator in the story -- he’s not the one writing Golightly’s story. He’s writing the story of the narrator who is then writing Golightly’s story. It’s meta! In 1961, George Axelrod took a stab at taking Capote’s character sketch and turning it into a film starring Audrey Hepburn as a much-aged-past-19 Holly Golightly; blue-eyed George Peppard as the flawless and swoon-worthy narrator, now named Paul; Patricia Neal as the woman who is Peppard’s “keeper” (yeah I don’t know either); Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi; and most noteworthy Putney, who played the role of Cat. As is the case with the bulk of film adaptations, Axelrod made the story his own. He borrowed a bit from the source material, but he made this story his own. Which makes sense because Capote didn’t write a story -- he wrote a character writing a character.

In this adaptation of the story, Paul (who Golightly calls Fred throughout because he reminds her of her “brother” Fred) meets Golightly near immediately. There’s not a passage of time, but rather, he runs into her as he moves into the apartment complex where she dwells. Paul is a writer, but he’s not writing Golightly’s story in the film; rather, he’s writing “novels” and “other things.” He’s also a kept man. And boy, who wouldn’t want to keep a man like that? He’s dreamy. Whenever he bats his eyes, the angels sing and the world opens up and all women just flock to him. Neal is really lucky in her role as his keeper - she has him on a leash. He’s all hers. I want it noted right now that Hepburn and Neal are only three years apart in age but boy, did Axelrod play up an age difference. We can agree though that Hepburn is definitely not playing a 19-year-old in the movie. The film itself is not told through Paul’s point of view. We get a story about Paul.

But really, that doesn’t matter; what does matter is that Golightly is the object of Paul’s affection. Because he’s so dreamy, he can just chase what it is he wants. Oh and does he try. He attends Golightly’s parties - where she is certainly engaged in the crowd, enamored with the wealth and glory that rubbing elbows with socialites brings - and he tells her on more than one occasion just how much he loves her and cares about her. He doesn’t want her to have the autonomy to chase the money (err... men) she wishes to. He keeps reminding her that, you know, there’s a really attractive man living right beneath your nose you can have. Lucky for Paul, after enough pushing, Golightly changes her mind. She was wrong all along, silly girl. Maybe he was right for her and maybe he did know what was best for her. I jumped ahead, I know. We do get to know some of Golightly’s back story in the film. However, it’s secondary. It’s hardly even a blip on developing her character at all.

It’s sort of shoved in the middle of the film that Golightly was a married woman who fled her family and that Paul’s meant to be the messenger about her much older husband being back to retrieve her and remind her that he loves her and that people back home depend upon her. It’s also sort of shoved in there that she feels lost and lonely and like her life is meaningless. Actually, no it’s not at all. At the very beginning of the film, I felt like Hepburn was really channeling Capote’s character. There’s a genuine listlessness, and she plays it so well. But the minute Paul enters her life and starts to be the Man She Needs, suddenly Hepburn’s portrayal of the sad and lonely Golightly changes. (See what happens when the writer inserts himself in the character?) During the pivotal party scene, where her apartment is littered with rich people and things, Golightly engages with her fellow attendees, and she’s an active part of the festivities. The moment when Hepburn cuts ties with “brother” Fred and the life she left before moving to NYC, the emotions ring false.

And while this is a clear moment of portraying just how phony she’s become (paging Holden Caulfield), the inconsistency with her character up to this point and the lack of development of this pretty important back story, Hepburn failed to advance her character. We know she’s going to run to Paul, and it was impossible for me to not sigh after this scene because after Fred leaves, Golightly gets drunk and becomes Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG). She transforms! She’s free from her past! She’s attractive! Watch her sparkle! She never feeds her damn cat when he is hungry! DID SHE NOT HEAR HIM MEOWING? ALL HE WANTED WAS SOME FOOD! So after this transformation, when Golightly and Paul have their day - the one day that is the iconic piece of what people remember of the film and where she goes to Tiffany’s and lusts after finer things which isn’t really what Capote meant by the whole thing in the book - she’s not at all removed from the situation. She is fully invested in the story and in her life. Hepburn doesn’t portray her as playing along reluctantly; she’s not playing at all. She’s living and engaging.

She’s playing the customers and management at the dime store where they steal the masks from. This girl isn’t sad or removed from herself or her life. She’s been shown the way by a pair of baby blue eyes. Thank god. I could go on about the ending and about how it’s the happily ever after that gets a crowd going and leaves viewers with a sense of hope about love. But it was so disingenuous to not just Capote’s story, but to the characters, too. Golightly goes from being the kind of character Capote envisioned into what it is society thinks that a woman should be. Or maybe that’s not fair - she becomes the romanticized idealized MPDG to Paul. And that he gets her to bend to his will and succumb to the realization that yeah, he was the love of her life and that she needs him? Man I love a satisfying ending like that. Particularly when it’s so true, that indeed, Golightly IS a woman who can be caged and protected by someone like Paul. Wait, what? This is the total opposite of what Capote intended. TOTAL. OPPOSITE.

His story ends by suggesting that no character can be colored by happily ever after, and yet, Axelrod has taken the story and done nothing but make it a happily ever after. He’s corralled the character who couldn’t be corralled. Which -- if you’re a screenwriter making an adaptation of a film, you have total control over storylines and melding it to be your own vision. But to take a storyline and drop it entirely on its head? Why then have a source material at all? Let’s talk about a couple other minor quibbles I have: what about the amazing portrayal of the exotic in the film? It makes sense because Golightly is trying to be a socialite and an elite member of the NYC world that she would want to surround herself with Asians, with Brazilians, and she’d want to spend time at a dance club where she could then watch something foreign before her. But what the hell was this Mickey Rooney character? A racist. That’s what. This was incredibly uncomfortable to watch, and not just because it was sheerly racist. While the story took place in a time where that kind of portrayal might have been acceptable in society, the fact is, Mr.

Yunioshi in the book is NOT the stereotypical Asian as he’s made to be in the film. In fact, he plays a bit of a bigger role in the book in that he tries, too, to engage with Golightly. He isn’t some insensitive neighbor working to bust up her fun - he actually wants her to, you know, live. That he’s then just a throw away stereotype in the film is unfortunate. There’s terrible pacing in the movie, and there’s an odd jump in passage of time that happens near the end, where we don’t know what had happened to Paul nor what happened to Golightly. But we know that Golightly is happy and is going to get married and Paul won’t let that happen. Blah blah blah, then they are together. Time apart only made their feelings stronger, you know. Most importantly, I think what Axelrod’s film could have done with is much more Cat and much less Hep. Because did you see the acting by Cat? It was great! Not just the acting was impeccable, but the fact he was so horribly mistreated by Hepburn also merits some applause. That cat does not look happy.

And that’s more authentic emotion right there than is shown throughout the rest of the film. Then there is this moment in the film, and I let it speak for itself: Now that you’ve endured my lengthy critique of Axelrod’s adaptation of Capote’s work, I hope it’s obvious that these aren’t the same story, not even a little bit. Maybe Axelrod had hoped to take this character and give her a story and play around with the notion of the writer and the lives his characters can take when left to do so. But Axelrod didn’t do that. He told an entirely different story, and he kept a tight leash on his characters and how they were allowed to move and think and feel. And those things all fell into predictable and ugh-worthy tropes. Does that mean Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a bad movie? No. Does that mean Breakfast at Tiffany’s is not worth watching? No. Does that mean Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a horrific adaptation that has nothing to do with the book and in fact contradicts the entire point of the book? Yep. Even Capote thought the adaptation was pretty awful.

According to Turner Classic Movies , this was his reaction: "Even though Breakfast at Tiffany's was a success and nominated for five Academy Awards, the one person who was not happy with the film was author Truman Capote. He was outspoken in his disapproval of what had been done with his book. He was unhappy with everything: the tone, the casting, the director. He felt betrayed by Paramount. 'I had lots of offers for that book, from practically everybody,' he said, 'and I sold it to this group at Paramount because they promised things, they made a list of everything, and they didn't keep a single one.' Capote was unhappy with the casting. 'It was the most miscast film I've ever seen,' he said. 'Holly Golightly was real-a tough character, not an Audrey Hepburn type at all. The film became a mawkish valentine to New York City and Holly, and, as a result, was thin and pretty, whereas it should have been rich and ugly.

It bore as much resemblance to my work as the Rockettes do to Ulanova.' After the release of the film version of Breakfast at Tiffany's, author Truman Capote was very vocal about his disdain for the film, and especially the casting of Audrey Hepburn as Holly, a role that he hoped would go to his friend, Marilyn Monroe. Truman Capote later said that he considered actress Jodie Foster the perfect person to play Holly Golightly as he originally wrote her." Yeah, you know? Jodie Foster as Holly Golightly would have been THE RIGHT CHOICE. Not the light-on-her-feet, MPDG-playing Hepburn. And it’s not simply that she wasn’t the right choice for Golightly. It’s that her acting wasn’t even GOOD. It was inconsistent all over the place. Whether it’s her fault or Axelrod’s, she didn’t understand the character and that shines through in spades. Okay, so. If you want a fantastic character sketch that showcases the furthest thing from a MPDG as possible, pick up Capote’s novella. It is dark, complicated, and utterly satisfying to think about. If you want a love story, watch Axelrod’s film. Just do not connect the two.

To round out this post, I’d like to remind you about this: I think this might be the faithful adaptation of Capote’s book. If it were set in the 90s, with bad hair, bad fashion, and way-too-catchy lyrics. Final Rating: "Barely tolerable, I dare say. But not handsome enough to tempt me." (From Pride & Prejudice, by Jane Austen and directed by Joe Wright in 2005) We'd watch this, but only to make fun of it. Kelly would like it to be known that she wishes she could give it 1.5 stars but that she rounded up "for the cat's sake." Well, it certainly sounds like someone else felt the same way about this movie that I did. I'm of the opinion once is enough. And I'm so glad someone finally had the guts to give Putney the cat the kudos he so richly deserved. Including that song which shall not be named was really uncalled for though. But I suppose it couldn't be helped. What do you all think? Have you read the book? And what the heck was Mickey Rooney thinking with that? Thanks for visiting, Kelly!

Don't forget to visit her at her usual blogspace, Stacked and on twitter . How Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s Gave Birth to a Cultural Icon and a Provocative Broadway Play | Broadway Buzz | Broadway.com How Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s Gave Birth to a Cultural Icon and a Provocative Broadway Play Features By Marc Snetiker March 14, 2013 - 4:10PM Audrey Hepburn in the film 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' & Emilia Clarke in promo art for the stage version About the Show Videos Chart the journey of 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' from the page to the stage. There’s no name more synonymous with window shopping on Fifth Avenue than Holly Golightly, the goodtime girl at the center of Truman Capote’s classic novella-turned-movie Breakfast at Tiffany’s . Now that Holly has hit Broadway in a new play written by Tony winner Richard Greenberg and starring Game of Thrones favorite Emilia Clarke , we’re taking a look back at how this swanky character became a bona fide pop culture gem.

The Birth of Holly Golightly In 1958, author Truman Capote was already a celebrity when he published his now-iconic Breakfast at Tiffany’s: A Short Novel and Three Stories. Capote declared that the titular novella launched the second cycle of his writing career, following the success of his first novel, Other Voices, Other Rooms. Breakfast at Tiffany's is narrated by a young, nameless writer dubbed “Fred” who becomes fascinated with his mysteriously eccentric, social climbing neighbor Holly Golightly, reportedly an amalgam of many society women Capote knew (including Gloria Vanderbilt, Oona Chaplin and model Suzy Parker). Holly became the writer’s most famous (and his favorite) creation, a character whose name said it all: a happy-go-lucky wanderer who bounced through life like a holiday. “She’s got this never-ending energy,” Emilia Clarke told Broadway.com.

“She is shrouded in mystery, but at the same time is incredibly effervescent and someone you want to be around.” Capote sold the story for $2,000 to Harper’s Bazaar, but the magazine feared that Tiffany’s’ adult language and sexual content would offend both readers and the folks at Tiffany & Co., a major advertiser. Esquire picked up the manuscript and published it serially in 1958. The publicity was enormous, and Hollywood was immediately interested. Holly Goes to Hollywood Film producer Richard Shepherd optioned the rights to Capote’s novella and took it to Paramount, where the film entered development with contract actress Audrey Hepburn in the lead role. Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe, arguing that the prim and proper Hepburn was completely miscast. Screenwriter George Axelrod’s sanitized script was markedly different from the novella. Holly’s profession as a high-end call girl—which was addressed directly in the book—was dialed down in the film, along with her age, bisexual curiosity and propensity for marijuana.

Similarly, the film’s ending was made more upbeat, the setting was changed from wartime 1940s to 1960, and the gayness of the male narrator (played by George Peppard) was completely eliminated. Still, director Blake Edwards' film, released in October 1961, was a whopping success, earning two Oscars (including one for Henry Mancini's haunting hit "Moon River," sung by Hepburn on a fire escape) and catapulting its star into cultural icon status. Both the film and the book caused dozens of women to claim they had inspired Holly; one named Bonnie Golightly even went so far as to file a libel lawsuit against Capote, though it was ultimately unsuccessful. Capote called the entire sensation the "Holly Golightly Sweepstakes." Culture Pops for Capote Though the novella and film became undeniable classics, Tiffany’s entered pop culture in other media as well, including a never-seen ABC pilot for a sitcom titled Holly Golightly starring Stefanie Powers and Jack Kruschen. Of all the adaptations, perhaps most memorable was a notorious 1966 musical version, which was pulled from Broadway after four previews.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s the musical starred Mary Tyler Moore and Richard Chamberlain and featured music and lyrics by Bob Merrill of Funny Girl fame and a book by Edward Albee (replacing an earlier draft by Abe Burrows). The out-of-town tryouts were chaos, with some versions of the show running more than four hours. Holly & Co. limped into Broadway's Majestic Theatre, but producer David Merrick quickly shuttered the musical and placed an infamous ad in The New York Times declaring that he refused to “subject the drama critics and the public to an excruciatingly boring evening.” Playwright Samuel Adamson adapted the novella in 2009 for the Theatre Royal Haymarket in London. Pushing Daisies starlet Anna Friel played Holly, with Joseph Cross as Fred. (Critics liked Friel, who did a nude scene; the script, not so much.) The production was directed by Sean Mathias, who would go on to helm the 2013 Broadway adaptation.

Broadway Has Breakfast In October 2012, producers announced their intention to bring Breakfast at Tiffany’s back to the Broadway stage in a new adaptation by Richard Greenberg, a Tony winner for his baseball-themed comedy Take Me Out. Mathias reprises his role as director, with Emilia Clarke as Holly. “Having an actor play the right part at the right moment when the world doesn’t really know them and they go, ‘Oh my gosh, who is that person?’ That’s what we have with Emilia,” Mathias told Broadway.com. Joining Clarke are Broadway newcomer Cory Michael Smith as Fred and Cheers star George Wendt as bartender Joe Bell (a major character in the novella). The adaptation is based entirely on the book, so audience members expecting the a carbon copy of the film will certainly be in for a surprise (including at least one nude scene ). Still, the play promises to be a nostalgic night at the theater for anyone enamored with the character of Holly Golightly. “Fundamentally, we’re not doing the movie,” explained Clarke. “There will still be people coming to see the show who maybe might expect it, but they’ll get something quite different...but pretty damn special.”

Question: Who played the male lead in the film 'Breakfast at Tiffany's'?
Answer: George Peppard